Relative and Absolute Test-Retest Reliability of Several Persian Auditory Processing Tests for Dichotic Listening and Recognition of Speech-In-Noise in Normal Children Aged 6-12 Years

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 Student Research Committee. MSc Student of Audiology, Audiology Department, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 Phd, Assisstant Professor, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences,, Tehran Iran

3 Master of Audiology, Lecturer, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran Iran

4 MSc in Biostatistics, Basic Sciences Department, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aim: Assessment of auditory processing in children is performed via special tests with confirmed sensitivity. For any adapted or developed test, there should be evidences to demonstrate acceptable test-retest reliability. Recently, two dichotic listening and two recognition of speech-in-noise tests of auditory processing have been developed in Persian language. The present study aimed to assess test-retest reliability of these tests in normal children.
MaterialsandMethods: The present observational and analytic study was performed on 40 children, aged 6-12 years old, selected from two elementary schools in Tehran. Inclusion criteria were right-handedness, normal peripheral hearing sensitivity (< 20 dB HL in frequencies of 500-4000 Hz), and normal school performance. Farsi Auditory Recognition of Digits-in-Noise (FARDIN), Persian Auditory Recognition of Words-in-Noise (PARWIN), Persian Pediatric Competing Words (PPCW), and Persian Pediatric Competing Sentences (PPCS) tests were administered in two sessions with the same conditions 45 days apart. Both relative and absolute reliability indices were calculated.
Results: The mean score of FARDIN and PARWIN did not show a significant difference between tests and retest sessions. Dichotic listening tests scores showed a significant improvement in retest session. Intra-class correlations for tests of recognition of speech-in-noise and dichotic listening tests were 0.6-0.65 and 0.6-0.9, respectively. FARDIN and PPCW showed higher absolute reliability compared with PARWIN and PPCS tests, respectively.
Conclusion:Although children' performance for dichotic tests in retest session was slightly better, it seems that auditory processing tests used in the current study have adequate test-retest reliability in normal children.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Central auditory processing: Current status of research and implications for clinical practice. Am J Audiol. 1996;5:41–54. ##
  2. Bamiou DE, Musiek FE, Luxon LM. Aetiology and clinical presentations of auditory processing disorders. Arch disord child. 2001;88(5):361-5##
  3. Geffner D, Ross-Swain D. central auditory processing disorders : definition , description and behaviores. Auditory processing disorders: Assessment, management and treatment: Plural Publishing; 2012. p. 59. ##
  4. Jerger J, Musiek F. Report of the consensus conference on the diagnosis of auditory processing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11(9):467-74. ##
  5. Bocca E, Calearo C, Cassinari V. A new method for testing hearing in temporal lobe tumours: preliminary report. Acta oto-laryngologica. 1954;44(3):219-21. ##
  6. Mahdavi ME. Development of a dichotic training program with multitalker babble and its effect on recognition of speech in noise in learning-disabled children. Tehran: Iran University of Medical Sciences; 2015. ##
  7. Mahdavi ME, Peyvandi AA. Persian competing word test: Development and preliminary results in normal children. Audiol. 2007;16(2):1-7 [in Persian]. ##
  8. Heidari M, Mahdavi ME, Heidari F, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. Auditory recognition of Persian digits in multi-talker babble noise: a preliminary study. Aud Vest Res. 2015;24(3):25-31. ##
  9. Aghazadeh J, Mahdavi ME, Tahaei S, Tabatabaee S. Inter-list equivalency and reliability of the Persian randomized dichotic digits test. Aud Vest Res. 2015;24(2):71-9. ##

10. Khalili M, Fatahi J, Hajiabolhassan F, Tahaei AA, Jalaei S. Test-retest reliability and list equivalency of the Persian Quick Speech in Noise Test. Modern Rehabilitation. 2010;3(3):16-21. [in Persian]. ##

11. Lotfi Y, Kargar S, Javanbakht M, Biglarian A. Development, Validity and Reliability of the Persian Version of the Consonant-Vowel in White Noise Test. J Rehabil Sci Res. 2016;3(2):29-34. ##

12. Schow RL, Chermak G. Implications from factor analysis for central auditory processing disorders. Am J Audiol. 1999;8(2):137-42. ##

13. Cokely CG, Humes LE. Reliability of two measures of speech recognition in elderly people. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1992;35(3):654-60. ##

14. Keith RW. Development and standardization of SCAN-C: test of auditory processing disorders in children. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11:438-45. ##

15. Hugdahl K, Hammar Å. Test-retest reliability for the consonant-vowel syllables dichotic listening paradigm. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1997;19(5):667-75. ##

16. Strouse A, Wilson RH. Recognition of one-, two-, and three-pair dichotic digits under free and directed recall. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10(10):557-71. ##

17. McArdle RA, Willson RH, Burks CA. Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits,word and sentences. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;)16 :(726-739. ##

18. .Wilson RH, McArdle R. Intra-and inter-session test, retest reliability of the Words-in-Noise (WIN) test. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2007;18(10):813-25##

19. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231-40. ##

20. Cohen RJ, Swerdlik ME, Phillips SM. Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement. 7th ed: McGraw−Hill Companies, Inc.; 2009. ##

21. Looney MA. When is the intraclass correlation coefficient misleading? Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science. 2000;4(2):73-8.##

The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 6, Issue 4
January and February 2018
Pages 160-167

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 04 August 2016
  • Revise Date: 26 December 2016
  • Accept Date: 12 February 2017
  • First Publish Date: 22 December 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics